Bank Lawyer's Blog

There Ain't No "There," There

Last week, an article by Andy Peters in the American Banker hit a nerve. It profiled a California bank that had tried to make small dollar loans work as an alternative to payday lending, but had decided to give up the effort.

One PacificCoast Bank in Oakland, Calif., is regrouping as it looks to battle payday lenders in the San Francisco Bay area.

The $282 million-asset thrift recently pulled the plug on its One Pac Pal loan, which it tailored to offer low-income clients short-term credit at reasonable rates and terms. The program, which began 18 months earlier, lost too much money, says Kat Taylor, One PacificCoast's chief executive.

"We have not yet found an economically sustainable product that's sufficient to save enough people" from payday lenders, she says.

I hate to say "I told you so," but...Oh, who am I kidding. I TOLD YOU SO!From August 1, 2007:

In June, when the FDIC issued its final Affordable Small-Dollar Loan Guidelines and FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair was pressing commercial banks to compete with payday lenders for the "Mini Me" loan biz, even banks in states like North Carolina, which kicked out the bottom feeders, were rolling their eyeballs in disdain at the prospect of rushing in to fill the breach. Among other problems, the Guidelines "encourage" banks to cap the APR at 36 percent.

[...]

The North Carolina banks banks profiled in the linked article didn't believe that there was enough bang for the buck to justify dipping their toes in the shallow water. Even the lone credit union that offered a payday loan-like product wasn't making any money on it because it was barred by state law from charging more than an 18% APR and it was actually requiring the loan to be paid back in 90 days. If it had only rolled the loan over (and over and over) and neglected to comply with the usury laws, it might, like Madonna, have been able to "get into the groove" and make some real payday lender-like money.

Lyndsey Medsker, spokesperson for the Community Financial Services Association of America, which, according to another article, represents about 60 percent of the payday loan industry, said the 36% annual percentage rate cap was a non-starter for commercial banks.

"There's an effort to cap loans at 36 percent annual rate, which the FDIC guidelines suggest. How that works into two- week loans is $1.38 per $100," she says. "I know payday lenders can't make money on that, so banks couldn't possibly either."

Mr. Peters' latest article also quotes a consultant as correctly noting that at the same time these loans pose a high risk of nonpayment, they bear a high regulatory compliance risk and, because credit scores must be thrown out the window (or reliance on them reduced), a high underwriting risk. Peters also notes that the FDIC ended its small dollar loan pilot program in 2009 because banks couldn't make a return sufficient to cover the risk.

One PacificCoast bank's experience is in line with the consistent experience of other FDIC-insured banks who've tried to beat payday lenders at their own game over the past six years. Basic business principles don't change. However, they've never ceased to be ignored in the service of an ideological agenda, one which holds that payday loans are evil because they have high fees that "trap" poor people in a never-ending spiral of debt, people who are too stupid and/or unsophisticated and/or desperate to think for themselves, and who must be protected from their inherent deficiencies by those who know better. Guys like Recess Richie and the Payday Slayers.

It's obvious that trying to use traditional banks as payday lending alternatives is not going to work. Unless, of course, you let them earn the same return that payday lenders earn.Which kind of thwarts the "higher purpose," doesn't it?

That's right Liz, reality bites.

FDIC's Take On FFIEC's Social Media Guidance

I ran across an interview recently that the FDIC's Elizabeth Khalil gave to InfoSecurity's Tracy Kitten about the FFIEC's proposed guidance on social media. Among my take-aways are the following:

• The push for the guidance came from smaller banks that wanted the regulators to give them some free advice. We all understand the fact that because small banks have less money available to pay for expensive lawyers, they look to leverage off of every free resource they can glom onto. Trade associations aren't free, but if you're paying your dues, you look to them to give you your money's worth. Since banks pay the federal bank regulators assessments, they want some bang for those bucks, as well. I get it.
• While Ms. Khalil mentioned "reputational risk" as the second major risk of the three she discussed ("compliance issues" was number one and "third party risk" was the third), I think reputational risk layers through much of the regulators' concerns. For example, misuse of consumers' personal information may be a compliance risk issue, and a Facebook vulnerability to hackers is a third-party risk. However, they both can impact the bank's reputation. Bad things that happen in a bank's social media endeavors often pose a reputational risk as an additional risk, and that's a safety and soundness concern which, in turn, is a regulatory compliance concern.
• None of what's in the guidance is new, and banks that are already engaged in social media activities should already be familiar with the elements of the guidance. If they're not, they better become familiar in a hurry and hope that no one notices.
• Due diligence on third party service providers that you intend to use is critical. The due diligence needs to be ongoing. A third party's faux pas can bite the bank in the backside as well as the third party. Monitoring is essential.
• As is the case with online banking security, the regulators encourage banks to educate consumers on social media risks. For example, the regulators will look favorably on a bank educating its social media users on the risk of fraudulent bank sites, how to recognize the real deal from the fraudster, and that they should never give up personal information over social media. 
• Whether or not a bank is actively using social media to interface with current or potential customers, it needs to have a social media use policy. The bank's employees are using social media, and other people may be saying bad things about you in cyberspace. The bank should have a policy that deals with these issues.

The final guidance is expected to be out in the near future (the comment period closed March 25th), depending on the nature of the comments received.Interested bankers should keep their eyes peeled (although, don't hold your breath).

I'll be giving a breakout session on social media compliance on July 3, 2013 at CUNA’s America’s Credit Union Conference in New York City. If you're a reader and are attending that conference, say hello.

Scapegoating 101

The 20/20 hindsight afforded members of Congress when judging the alleged failures of the independent foreclosure reviews that we discussed last night also graces the peepers of the Government Accountability Office.

The independent foreclosure reviews abruptly ended by regulators in January failed from a lack of objectivity, oversight and consistency in the loan sampling process, said Lawrance Evans, director of financial markets and community investment for the Government Accountability Office.

[...]

Despite having a large portion of the funds already in the mail to homeowners, Evans says GAO’s probe into how the IFR was handled is far from complete.

He told lawmakers GAO plans to conduct more studies on how regulators came up with the $8.5 billion settlement figure when there is no data to show how that number was chosen or exact calculations on how many homeowners were, in fact, harmed by foreclosures.

He pointed out that "regulators’ statistical sampling approach did not include mechanisms to allow the regulators to monitor consultants’ progress toward finding as many harmed borrowers as possible."

Without data on how many borrowers were actually harmed, the GAO representative says his office wants answers on how the compensation figures were determined by the OCC and Federal Reserve.

In other words, the beat(ing) will go on.

And On.

And on.

While that's going on, the regulators are going all passive-aggressive by asking Congress to clarify that the regulators have the power to take enforcement action directly against independent contractors for banks. Because, you know, if the regulators require banks, as part of related enforcement orders, to hire independent consultants to perform very expensive services in order to comply with the enforcement orders, and the lack of clear, or even consistent, instructions on what the criteria and processes should be to perform those services leads to later criticism of the regulators over those services, well, then, regulators must be able to blame somebody, and looking in the mirror is simply out of the question (vampires cannot see their own reflections). Thus, the regulators must be able to blame the independent contractors and pursue them via enforcement processes that give the regulators a leg up on the object of their (lack of ) affection. Just like banks.

The independent contractors are reacting badly to the regulators' reaction (paid subscription required).

"I'm not sure having the regulators regulate consultants would make them more independent," said Jon Winick, president of bank advisory firm Clark Street Capital. "A better idea is to have the regulators hire the consultant then."

That would be a good alternative, except then the regulators would be responsible for the consultants' performance (or lack thereof), and we can't have that. They must be able to blame either the banks, the consultants, or both. That's not possible if the regulators are in a position to bear any responsibility.

"To me, the whole thing about the consultants is just more scapegoating," said Walter Moeling 4th, a partner at the Bryan Cave law office.

Man, I'm glad I'm not as cynical as Walt. Personally, I think this is all just a legitimate disagreement among well-intentioned people who are not worried about covering their own backsides, deflecting blame, or promoting themselves at the expense of others, but only about trying to "do the right thing."

Tighten Up! No, Loosen Up!

The Obama administration’s recent call for mortgage lenders to loosen underwriting standards on residential mortgage loans to less-than-“Qualified Mortgagors” as long as the FHA (i.e., the American taxpayer) is taking most of the risk of default, generated some pretty strong reaction from the usual suspects.

"If that were to come to pass, that would open the flood-gates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from," said Ed Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former top executive at mortgage giant Fannie Mae.

[…]

"There's always a tension that you have to take seriously between providing clarity and rules of the road and not giving any opportunity to restart the kind of irresponsible lending that we saw in the mid-2000s," said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

Ya’ think?

The administration is also purportedly urging the Justice Department to ease up on lenders who make loans in accordance with the administration-encouraged looser and goosier FHA underwriting critera. The FHA also claims that it hopes to encourage "by example" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to follow along. It's as if the subprime meltdown never occurred and Dodd-Frank was never passed, except for the fact that the federal banking regulators, including the CFPB, are taking a directly contrary approach to mortgage underwriting. Moreover, loan originators live in mortal fear of Freddie and Fannie repurchase requests, which have been massive, since those two publicly-controlled giants are the conventional residential mortgage market.

This whip-saw of inconsistency evidences a major example of cognitive dissonance.

Private reaction from bankers and bank lawyers with whom I attended the recent Texas Bankers Association Annual Legal Conference in Austin, Texas, was even more derisive.  Much time during that conference was spent parsing the nuances of “Qualified Mortgages” and “Qualified Residential Mortgages,” which will make qualifying for a residential mortgage loan much more difficult for many potential homeowners. In addition, the plethora of new regulations being spewed out by the CFPB makes consumer lending, including making single family mortgage loans, riskier and more expensive. The bottom line for a number of community bankers is that they will be making few, if any, residential mortgage loans, at least not directly. In addition, bankers who decide to make residential mortgage loans are definitely not crazy about making anything other than loans that will fall under the QM safe harbor.

I would say that it’s amazing that the administration could talk so glibly out of both sides of its mouth, except that it’s not at all amazing. It’s what these cynical, pandering clowns do as naturally as breathing in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide.

Refraining From Punching The Punching Bag

A regular reader sent me a link to a video of a recent interview of Sheila Bair by Bill Moyers. Bair plus Moyers equals big bank bashing, and you know going in what you're going to hear. For those who expect me to do my usual double-tap to Bair's forehead, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I didn't think she was that far off base.

Moyers tried to serve her some softballs that she could stroke into the far left-hand corner of the outfield, but to me, Sheila seemed, for the most part, to resist the temptation to play to Moyer's typical crowd (take a look at the comments box for a sampling). She let it be known that while she's no fan of the management of the largest banks, and she believes that the federal bank regulators have suffered "cognitive capture" by those banks, she also thinks that trying to modify Dodd-Frank to add more specific provisions regarding breaking up the big banks is a fool's errand. Not only is it impossible to effect in the current political environment, but the regulators already have the tools to accomplish what they need to accomplish regarding mitigating the risk of the "Too-Big-To-Fail" institutions. That's the theory, at any rate, and I don't find it to be an unreasonable one.

Of course, the regulators had all the tools they needed to prevent the latest financial disaster and didn't use them effectively. Yet, we can always have hope, can't we?

I do find her purported amazement at the fact that banks use their own internal models to assign risk weights to certain held-for-trading assets to be, itself, amazing. As Dealbreaker's Matt King observed not too long ago, the banks base their models on public information and that information is, to put it mildly, "opaque." I doubt that the regulators would have much more success in assigning across-the-board risk weights to such assets in the same manner that they can assign risk weights to single-family mortgage loans. Moreover, the regulators have not been clamoring to usurp the banks' internal models with spiffy new and improved models of their own, have they? Maybe they have and I've simply missed the clamor.

I also found amusing her contention that Congress could have been more "prescriptive" in Dodd-Frank, contrary to the wishes of the regulators, who wanted to retain more discretion to set the rules. Leaving aside her own position on this issue in the formulation of Dodd-Frank, that act was drafted so hastily and rammed down the throats of the opposition so quickly that the very idea that the folks who wrote it could have nailed down "prescriptions" in any coherent fashion is implausible. On the other hand, as we've found in many of the lawsuits that the FDIC has filed against former officers and directors of failed community banks, hindsight is amazingly clear-eyed and Sheila has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

All-in-all, however, Sheila is sounding almost reasonable these days. Or, perhaps, I'm merely mellowing.

Beating The CFPB To The Punch

Community banks have been concerned that, although they might be exempt from direct supervision and enforcement by the CFPB, they would be recipients of a "trickle down" effect that would result when their primary federal bank regulator would attempt to demonstrate that it could stay abreast, or even ahead, of the CFPB when it comes to cracking down on unfair, deceptive, and "abusive" practices. Fraud, small banks understand, but they tend to fear zealots who may not be able to define an "abusive" practice with precision, but sure as shooting know it when they see it.

An article in the most recent issue of Bank Safety & Soundness Advisor (paid subscription required) indicates that community bankers' fears are not without some foundation.

In a recent Webcast, officials from the Fed along with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco showcased a broadbased enforcement approach to UDAP rules and regulations, and some high expectations for how banks should be identifying and resolving complaints involving abusive or deceptive practices.

While some of the examples cited, including inflating borrower income on loan applications and charging "bogus points and origination fees" are clearly fraudulent, the net appears to be cast widely by the Fed.

Officials indicated they view as a kind of red flag banks pushing new or modified products and services to generate new revenue, especially if done in conjunction with third-party vendors where fees are shared.

“While searching for revenue is part of what a bank needs to do, there is also a need to make sure
there is compliance with UDAP and consideration of UDAP risk,” said Maureen Yap, the Federal
Reserve’s special counsel for fair lending.

And the officials underscored the idea that an act or practice does not have to violate another law to be unfair or deceptive. A potentially tell-tale sign of that: cases where revenue growth depends on consumers making what regulators and examiners feel are poor financial choices.

There you go: what an examiner "feels is a poor financial choice" by a consumer is the acid test. That gives a whole boatload of precision and certainty to the determination of what is and is not "abusive." Every bank will have to have a Potter Stewart on staff to make the call, I guess.

The potential burden is not going to be light.

For individual institutions, the potential coverage is huge, including not only all products and services, but every phase of the life cycle, including development, marketing, and loss mitigation activities.

One bank's "bogus points" scam, perpetrated by rogue loan originators, led to a determination that it had a "disparate impact" on minorities, and earned that bank a referral to the Justice Department. So, there's that potential liability to look forward to, as well.

What's a small community bank to do? Fed officials tried to be helpful.

Officials declined to address specific fact situations bankers posed during the March 5 webcast. They suggested that banks use the same sort of analysis that regulators do in assessing potential misconduct.

Yap said the Fed tells examiners to focus on the “INN” in determining whether conduct is unfair under the law. There must be “injury” to the consumer or group of consumers, the injury is “not reasonably avoidable,” and there are “no countervailing benefits.”

She said Fed examiners focus on the “MRM” to judge whether behavior is deceptive. Does the representation or omission “mislead” the consumer? Is the consumer response “reasonable”
given the representation or omission? Is the misrepresentation or omission “material”?

“The act or practice does not have to violate another law to be unfair or deceptive,” she said.
“If the prongs of the analysis are satisfi ed a UDAAP violation can be cited.” She said CA Letter 07-08 — a joint Federal Reserve/FDIC statement on consumer compliance exam procedures for UDAP — was “very instructive” in the types of questions bank should expect.

There's your heading on a course through the fog-bound waters of "abuse": think like an examiner.

And after you take that journey down a rabbit "warren" (pun intended), you can resurface and start walking like an Egyptian.

You've got your marching orders, folks. You can get with the program or you can get out of the business. Welcome to this brave new world.

The Not-So-Secret Facts of Life

The LA Times obtained a bunch of documents from the FDIC pursuant to a FOIA request and uncovered some startling news: the FDIC is settling lawsuits against those it alleges caused banks to fail. Worse than that, the FDIC is agreeing not to issue press releases regarding many of the settlements. This earth-shattering news is labeled a "major policy shift" from the way the FDIC handled failed bank litigation that arose out of the last big bank meltdown, "when the FDIC trumpeted punitive actions against banks as a deterrent to others."

Before I address that last point, let's listen to some more suspicious minds support the Times theme that all of this "secret settlement" skulduggery smacks of some kind of plot to let evil-doers escape the lynch mobs that surely would have strung them up if only the FDIC had set public outrage en fuego by  trumpeting these settlements from the top of the Rocky Mountains.

Critics fault the government for going easy on banks in the aftermath of the financial crisis. At a Feb. 14 hearing, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), founder of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, criticized FDIC Chairman Martin J. Gruenberg along with other bank regulators for their reluctance to make examples of Wall Street firms by taking them to trial.

Quoting "The Founder" is a go-to proposition for the Times, and one that lacks the punch that soundbites from other less usual suspects bring to the table. In addition, the Times' accusations range far beyond Wall Street banks. It's mostly (if not entirely) the little guys that are being pursued. God forbid they should get a break today from anyone other than MacDonalds.

Attorneys who have represented bank officials and the FDIC said regulators are now far likelier to settle cases before filing lawsuits than after the last spate of failures, when more than 2,300 institutions collapsed in the 1980s and early 1990s, bankrupting a fund that insured savings and loan deposits. That crisis grew out of Reagan-era deregulation, which allowed thrifts already hurting from 1970s inflation to make riskier investments, including commercial real estate deals that soured en masse during the second half of the 1980s.

Critics describe the FDIC's current practice of low-profile deal-making as a major departure from the S&L crisis.

"In the old days, the regulators made it a point to embarrass everyone, to call attention to their role in bank failures," said former bank examiner Richard Newsom, who specialized in insider-abuse cases for the FDIC in the aftermath of the S&L debacle. The goal was simple: "to make other bankers scared."

Newsom said he couldn't understand the shift, unless the agency doesn't "want people to know how little they are settling for."

The FDIC should disclose as much as it can, said Lauren Saunders, managing attorney at the National Consumer Law Center in Washington. "Transparency is always better, and serves as a deterrent to future misconduct."

Yes, let's deter the future conduct of owning, managing, and directing a community bank that concentrates on loan products that the regulators find are being originated and managed within the parameters of safety and soundness guidelines until, within a few months, the world falls apart in the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression. Thereafter, although we feel compelled to go after many failed bank officials, directors, and third parties because we've got an obligation to recover whatever losses to the fund we are able whenever we can do so without being laughed out of court, we understand, in our heart-of-hearts, notwithstanding the posturing we might do for political or litigation purposes, that these times are different than late 1980s.

This is what neither the Times nor its talking heads understand (or, if they do understand, will admit): the facts are different this time. In the 1980s, there were a number of outright crooks involved in the banking and, especially, the thrift business in certain parts of the country, some wearing stetsons and cowboy boots, others clad in three-piece Armani suits. There were fraudulent appraisals, my-dead-cow-for-your-dead-horse swaps, 100 percent loan-to-value ADC loans on raw dirt, rapid multiple flips that would have taxed Shawn Johnson, and similar shenanigans. The damages were also limited to certain regions of the country where real estate bubbles were exploited (or partially created) by financial institutions who engaged in outright speculation until those bubbles burst. Also, many of the worst players were (relatively) smaller players.

In the latest debacle, the causes of losses are more complicated and the resulting economic consequences much more devastating and widespread. Many of the hundreds of banks that failed collapsed because they were steamrolled by the swiftness of the onset, and the depth, of the economic collapse triggered, in large part, by subprime residential mortgage loans, the complex web of securities they spawned, and the resulting residential real estate inflation. Commercial real estate wasn't the primary cause of the collapse this time, it was a casualty of the collapse. You can argue until you're blue in the face about the nuances of fiduciary duties and CRE concentrations, but in all but the low hanging fruit cases, the FDIC doesn't have smoking guns laying in plain sight to use to extract huge settlements or litigation awards out of either defendants or, more importantly, their insurance companies, who are fighting back.

As to the lack of a "deterrent" to future potential wrongdoers that allegedly results from not making settlements public, I wouldn't be concerned that "silent settlements" are encouraging prospective bank officers and directors to do anything. Those who haven't said "screw it" and opted to sip mai-tais in Cabo until they need their livers "Rolfed," or are seriously considering an alternative exit strategy, aren't chomping at the bit to jump feet-first back into subprime anything or to make CRE or any other product or service their concentration-of-choice, and their primary regulatory supervisors wouldn't let them go there even if they yearned to do so. "Other bankers" are plenty scared Mr. Newsome, without the need to read about FDIC settlements. At least, that's the story with the vast number of smaller banks in this country.

I suppose there might be some deterrent effect if the FDIC announced settlements against the officers and directors of the large Wall Street banks that helped create the mess we're in and which then failed, so that future Wall Street bankers would...oops...none of them failed. That's right: they were bailed out. My bad!

Buried in the story is the rationale for keeping mum (until FOIA forces disclosure) about settlements.

Defendants benefit by settling because they can avoid admitting guilt and limit the damages they might face in court. The FDIC benefits by collecting money without the hassle and expense of litigation. The no-press-release arrangements help close those deals.

Those are valid reasons, and they make sense for both parties.

Let's hope the Times drills a little deeper next time and strikes oil instead of gas.

No Dice For United Western

A reader sent me a copy of yesterday's decision of Federal District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson in the United Western Bank lawsuit against the OCC that sought to set aside the January 2011 decision of the OTS to appoint the FDIC as receiver for the bank. To make a long story short, Judge Jackson ruled in favor of the OCC and refused to overturn the decision of the OTS (now defunct and subsumed by the OCC). I haven't had an opportunity to read the opinion or carefully consider it, and will not have an opportunity to do so until this weekend.

My initial reaction is that this is no surprise. From a couple of telephone calls I received today from other banking law attorneys who've been following the case, it appears to be no surprise to most banking attorneys. As I said when I first wrote about this case two years ago, the legal deck was stacked against the plaintiff from the start. As I also noted the following year, "no matter what my heart tells me, my head tells me not to bet against the OCC."

It may be disappointing to many that David failed to slay Goliath, but given the high legal bar to jump over, you'd need the helping hand of God to clear it, and, in this case, divine intervention was not forthcoming.

Vendor Management Is Still A Regulatory Hot Button

According to the FDIC, a common theme in IT examination downgrades is poor vendor management by banks.

Last year, in 46% of the FDIC IT examinations in which bank ratings were downgraded, inadequate vendor management was cited as a causal factor, says Donald Saxinger, senior examination specialist in FDIC's Technology Supervision Branch.

"I'm not saying it was the primal causal factor, but, in 46% of the downgrades, vendor management was cited," Saxinger says. He spoke during the recent ABA Telephone Briefing "Vendor management: Unlocking the value beyond regulatory compliance."

Although the most common “error” that FDIC examiners discovered was the failure by banks to ask their vendors for copies of regulatory examinations, that wasn’t the only nugget contained in the linked article from the ABA Banking Journal. Among the others:

• Vendor management needs to consider all service providers that hold sensitive customer information, not just IT vendors. These include loan workout consulting, appraisal review companies, outside attorneys, and others.

• Make sure to get the proper exam reports about individual vendors. Some banks just obtain reports for the host data center, but not for the specific application that the banks were using.

• Even the proper reports don't cover everything that a bank must consider in its security risk management efforts. For example, one service provider with an otherwise clean report did not have an internal audit program and its business continuity planning was poorly documented.

This is all sound advice, of course, but knowing what you need to ask for is only half the battle. You also need to make certain that the agreement with your vendor gives the bank the right to ask for, and the vendor the obligation to deliver to the bank, copies of the necessary reports. Relying on the goodwill of the vendor in coughing up examination and audit reports, especially when they may contain results that are less than flattering to the vendor, is "unwise."

Here's one more tip: if the report reveals problems, the agreement with the vendor should require the vendor to notify the bank of what action the vendor intends to take to remedy the defects, and should also require the vendor to give the bank periodic progress reports on its progress in correcting those problems.

I'll be doing a webinar on March 6, 2013 on the topic "Technology Service Agreements: Meeting Regulator’s Expectations." It covers regulatory guidance applicable to credit unions, banks, and thrifts, although the same essential principles apply to each. The goal is to discuss the provisions of a technology service agreement that regulators expect (and that sound business judgment requires) be included, and to give financial institutions guidance on how to approach the issues covered by each of those provisions so that the institution meets its regulator's expectations while also meeting the institution's business needs.

Updating

While it's been a hectic week, I wanted to resume blogging long enough to update a couple of recent posts with comments made by readers via email. The first concerned last week's post on Liz Warren's rabid rapid ascent into the stratosphere of the Senate. I closed that post by expressing the hope that Barney Frank's push to fill John Carey's vacant Senate seat would be successful so that, albeit for a short time, we could have both Lizzie Borden Warren and Barney ("Thufferin Thuccotash") Frank going hog wild in tandem on pro-consumer, BIG GOVERNMENT EXPANSION proposals that would have absolutely no chance of surviving a Senate filibuster, much less making it through a Republican-dominated House, but would contain as much moon battery and tom foolery as any blogger might wish for in his or her fondest blog-fodder dreams. Not being glued to Bay State political nuances, I had failed to notice that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick had spurned Barney's advances and instead chosen Patrick's very own former chief of staff to fill the interim Senate seat. Out of power, out of mind. I guess we'll have to make do with playing Wack-a-Wack-Job with Liz for the foreseeable future.

As a consolation prize, Barney gets to say "I'm not a real Senator, but I play one on stage."

Another reader, an experienced bank lawyer who has taken on the OTS and OCC from time-to-time, gave me a couple of intriguing comments about my most recent post, which discussed the FDIC's lawsuit against former officers and directors of the failed Charter Bank of New Mexico. I wondered why, after all the writedowns of CRE loans by the OTS and all of the resultant losses tied to those loans that could have been alleged by the FDIC, the FDIC focused instead on a smaller amount of losses caused by a subprime mortgage lending unit.

In the wake of the NLRB holding, and the simple fact that the OTS was running without a properly appointed director for several years, from March 2009 until the 2011 handover and in violation of the Vacancies Reform Act, wouldn’t you limit your case to the non-OTS determined issues too?

The Appointment of the Receiver in January 2010 was, perhaps, an illegal act in itself.

Fun food for thought.

Fun food for thought, indeed, although I haven't had the time--and no one is paying me--to think about it. Perhaps legal counsel for the former officers and directors of Charter Bank will have both the time and the financial incentive.